9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned strike notice of 14th March, 1983 given by Respondent No.1 union on behalf of its members was violative of Section 24(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Act. 2. Whether the impugned strike notice is violative of provision of Section 24(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Act. 3. Whether the impugned strike notice was hit by Section 24(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Act. 4. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was justified in interfering with the findings reached by the Labour Court. 5. What final order? Detailed Analysis: Point No. 1: The primary issue was whether the strike notice dated 14th March 1983 violated Section 24(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Act. The appellant contended that the notice was not in the prescribed form as required by Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Rules, 1975. The Labour Court had earlier held that the notice did not comply with the prescribed form. However, the High Court found that the notice substantially fulfilled the basic requirements of Form-I, such as the name and address of the Trade Union, the date of the notice, the addressee's details, the proposed strike date, and the reasons for the strike. The High Court concluded that the Labour Court's finding was patently erroneous and set it aside. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the impugned notice was not violative of Section 24(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Act and was a valid strike notice. Point No. 2: The second issue was whether the strike notice violated Section 24(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Act, which pertains to the requirement of obtaining the majority vote of the union members before serving the strike notice. The appellant did not raise this issue before the Labour Court, nor was it their case that Respondent No.1 Union was a recognized union under the Act. Consequently, the Labour Court did not consider this point. The Supreme Court held that since this point was not raised before the Labour Court, it does not arise for consideration in the present proceedings and must be held as redundant. Point No. 3: The third issue was whether the strike notice violated Section 24(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Act, which prohibits strikes during the period of any settlement or award in operation concerning matters covered by the settlement. The appellant argued that the strike notice related to matters covered by the settlement dated 8th March 1982, specifically Demand No.14 (Privilege Leave) and Demand No.26 (Medical Check-up). The Supreme Court found that the grievance in the strike notice regarding privilege leave pertained to the computation of leave, which was not covered by the settlement. Similarly, the grievance regarding health hazards and preventive measures was not covered by the settlement on medical check-up. The Court concluded that the strike notice did not violate Section 24(1)(i) of the Act and upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the Labour Court's finding. Point No. 4: The fourth issue was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Labour Court's findings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the Labour Court's findings unless there was a patent error. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court's findings were patently erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the High Court was justified in setting aside these findings under its supervisory jurisdiction. Point No. 5: In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the strike notice was not illegal under Section 24(1)(a), (b), or (i) of the Maharashtra Act. The Court did not award costs to either party, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
|
